Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Merabishvili v. Georgia

  [08.03.2017]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  The applicant claimed that the domestic courts had placed him in a situation whereby he was remanded in custody for an "unlimited or unpredictable time" (a reference was made to Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III), or an "indefinite period of time" (a reference was made to Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, § 267, 30 April 2013).

  He argued that his situation was similar to the cases of Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, §§ 108-09, 3 July 2012), and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, § 299, 30 April 2013).

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  The Court reiterates that it is not bound by domestic legal fee scales and practices and is thus free not to endorse domestic lawyers" hourly rates, which appear to be excessive (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 206, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  After coherently describing all the details (see paragraphs 34-45 above), the applicant claimed that the incident bore strong similarities to a situation described in a landmark case under Article 18 of the Convention, Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  All those previous cases concern the specific problem, conditioned by a particular legislative lacuna common to the criminal procedural law of a number of Contracting States, whereby defendants were held in custody even after the expiration of the relevant detention orders, solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment had been filed with a trial court (see also, as the leading authority on the matter, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 57-64, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  This particular standard requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, § 53, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  In exercising this function, the Court has to ensure that the domestic decisions were not in stereotypically worded or summary form (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 107, 8 February 2005), and that the reasoning was not of a declaratory nature, general or abstract (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 73, 30 January 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  With respect to Georgia, that distinct legal problem, similarly giving rise to violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the past, was linked to the now already extinct Code of Criminal Procedure of 20 February 1998 (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 106-111, 27 January 2009; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008), whereas the present case raises novel issues under the new Code of Criminal Procedure which entered into force on 1 October 2010 (see paragraph 59 above).